ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Contemporary inguinal hernia repair: do cost and operative time still differ by approach?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-utility of robotic versus laparoscopic TAPP for inguinal hernia: a model‑based analysis from a public payer perspective.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic vs. open inguinal hernia repair outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcerns about the expense of robotic surgery for inguinal hernia repairs have emerged alongside the growing interest and skill in robotic techniques over the past decade. This study aimed to assess whether the costs of robotic inguinal hernia repairs are comparable to those of laparoscopic or open methods.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repairs using mesh at a single tertiary academic medical center from 2020 to 2023. We compared costs and operation times for initial unilateral and bilateral cases.
resultsIn unilateral repairs-open (n = 384), laparoscopic (n = 35), and robotic (n = 312)-the median operative times were 62, 67, and 67 min, respectively. Open repairs were quicker than laparoscopic (p = 0.010), but no significant difference was noted compared to robotic repairs (p = 0.066), and there was no substantial difference between laparoscopic and robotic repairs (p = 0.5). The total costs for unilateral open repairs ($11,218) were lower than the costs for laparoscopic ($13,819, p = < 0.001) or robotic ($15,610, p = < 0.001) repairs, with laparoscopic also being less expensive than robotic (p = 0.019). For bilateral repairs, the median operative times were 104 min for open (n = 56), 101 min for laparoscopic (n = 23), and 88 min for robotic (n = 70). There were no significant differences in times between open and laparoscopic repairs (p = 0.6); however, robotic repairs were quicker than both open (p = 0.012) and laparoscopic (p = 0.017) repairs. The cost for laparoscopic bilateral repair was higher compared to open ($19,727 vs $18,516, p = 0.014), but robotic surgery ($19,172) did not show a significant difference when compared to open (p = 0.11) or laparoscopic (p = 0.4) repairs.
conclusionsBilateral inguinal hernia repair is performed most quickly using robotic techniques and exhibits costs similar to those of open and laparoscopic surgery. Further studies exploring how surgeon experience with robotics affects costs and operative time are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40259091What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.